[Vokbeelllicky]

The royal couple already have an 18-month-old son, Christian, but pundits were backing the princess to give birth to Denmark's first royal daughter since 1946. wtf?

[unsamiSlini]

Off with their heads! [/Laz]

[spamkillerf]

Yes, congratulations to them both.

It's a shame their union hasn't formally cemented Denmark and Australia together as one nation. Then I could go and live in Denmark and enjoy a northern european climate to which my body evolved to suit, and sun hungry danes could live in blistering heat.

All those lovely, blonde Danish girls that I'm missing out on...

[Diortarkivoff]

Even Iraq is more progressive than Denmark.

[Jourgenz]

It's not a monarchy.

[Rupeviv]

Danish monarchists

Danish feta

[unatkot]

It's lame^10000 to worship other people. Compared to Danes Iraqis are proud people who bow to noone.

[Switiespils]

By the thousands, for freedom. It's better than to kneel like a Dane.

[PaulRyansew]

Originally posted by VetLegion
By the thousands, for freedom. It's better than to kneel like a Dane. QFT.

If we had any Iraqi posters here, I'm sure none of them would ever post a thread about an Iraqi-citizen couple giving birth to a baby and fill it with 200 smilies (unless it's their own baby, I guess).

[dWSOj26H]

Is there anyone here who actually gives a flying f**k?

[CarrieSexy]

I thought Britain was te oldest Monarchy?

Jon Miller

[U5pz6B71]

Danish monarch in the 15-18th century

Denmark today

[RildFiemodo]

Most babies disgust me, but that infant is genuinely beautiful.

[AbraxiaAsus]

The "Off with their heads!" thing would bring Denmark closer to Iraq though.

[Fekliopas]

No thanks. I think I'll carry on posting here.

[exiceJetLip]

Originally posted by Winston
Lazarus and the Gimp, could you please confine your rambling postings to that gigantic ego trip you have going in the History Forum? You could even start 6-7 new threads on the historical aspects of monarchies, if you haven't already. Noone will laugh at you, I'm sure. At least not too loudly. Enough with the personal crap. Discuss the topic, NOT the posters.

[itaspCatCriny]

Sure... you can point it out... and then post back on topic... but not in the way you did. You started insulting him...

[AdSuiteAdobe]

Originally posted by Winston
Of course I did. In his usual petty little manner, he tried to turn this into a debate for or against monarchy, when it was specifically bumped for the occasion of the christening tomorrow, as should be quite obvious.

Virulently replying to a two months old post from an exchange that had clearly died out, and to which one was never a party in the first place, is not very becoming, least of all for a moderator. Or does this guy now have completely free rein to do as he pleases anywhere on the forums? If so, i think you'd better formally announce it to the rest of us. Gee... last time I checked, a debate against monarchy, or other things like dumping on the US Government, arguing against some nations policies is NOT aginst the rules.

What is against the rules is personal insults...

[spravka.ua]

Originally posted by Winston
You're missing the point, Ming. The issue here is threadjacking.

But if he ceases, I will certainly not pursue it any further. How's that? Uhhh... You are missing the point.
Personal insults are against the rules. A threadjack doesn't give you the right to make personal attacks.
You are the one in the wrong here.

[drexigordiche]

Originally posted by Winston
I've always insulted him personally, it's never been a problem. Well... personal insults are a problem. So I highly recommend you don't continue doing so in the future. Because it is against the rules. People have been restricted this week for doing it, and many others have been warned via PM or in-thread... Just continuing that policy.